MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2139807708 · doi:10.7122/151326-ms

Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Transportation Fuels: Issues and Implications for Unconventional Fuel Sources

2012· article· en· W2139807708 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCarbon Management Technology Conference · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueVehicle emissions and performance
Établissements canadiensNexen (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineeringGeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory and other policy approaches intended to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels can hinge on the fuel life-cycle analysis (LCA). Emerging regulation has raised urgent questions about both definition and evaluation of life-cycle emissions, and the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of regulatory approaches which use such analyses. This paper focuses on the LCA for transportation fuels from unconventional hydrocarbon sources and associated regulatory issues and implications, and examines these in the context of experience gained in the study of conventional hydrocarbon sources, biofuels, electric vehicles, and other alternatives. Critical issues arise in the regulatory use of life-cycle emissions analysis when comparing different types of fuels, for different types of vehicles, including:Uncertainty in life-cycle emissions - Differences in estimates of the life-cycle emissions for one fuel can exceed the differences in estimates for different fuels; boundaries, accounting, aggregation and accuracy of LCA are each critical and determining issues in its application in regulations.Flexible pathways - In order to incentivize innovation in fuel production, many pathways (with the ability to be altered) are needed to map production from each individual agent, who will each have their own process.Energy security - Regulation to lower the life-cycle emissions is often also intended to improve energy security (e.g. by increasing supplies of indigenous biofuels); however, in the case of unconventional sources of oil such regulations may aggravate energy security. For complex policies, such as those involving LCA - especially where there are international ramifications - much broader dialogue is needed to improve the policy's effectiveness, efficiency and ultimately credibility. INTRODUCTION Emerging regulation of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for transportation fuels has raised urgent questions about both definition and evaluation of life cycle emissions, and the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of regulatory approaches which use such analyses. The net emissions from a transportation fuel system depend on the definition of system boundaries, which should be appropriate for its use whether that be to provide insight or for a specific regulatory application. For example, inclusion of emissions from the production of vehicles would add to the system--or life-cycle - greenhouse gas emissions of a transportation fuel. For petroleum-based transportation fuels, the use of the fuel results in about five times the greenhouse gas emissions as in its production (EU JRC 2011, NETL 2008). Consistent application of aggregation, accuracy, and transparency of data are also important when making a comparison between any two production pathways. Critical issues arise in the regulatory use of life-cycle emissions when comparing different types of fuels, for different types of vehicles. It is important to note that a life-cycle assessment tool is not needed for regulatory use if there is a comprehensive policy on emissions across all regions and sectors of society - the cost of emissions would be accounted for where they occur. However, in the absence of a comprehensive policy, accurate and consistent life-cycle assessment can have a useful role when accounting for emissions from the life cycle of a fuel.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,339
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,449

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,248
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle